Insights Article
Get the latest insights and updates delivered to your inbox.
In May 2023, Bloomberg reported that new accounting rules had forced approximately eighty S&P 500 companies to reveal at least $64.1 billion in supplier finance obligations that had previously been invisible to investors.¹ The obligations were not new. The companies had been carrying them for years—in some cases, for over a decade. What was new was the disclosure. For the first time, investors could see the scale of a financing mechanism that had quietly become one of the largest categories of unrecognized leverage in American corporate finance.
The mechanism is known by several names: supply chain finance, reverse factoring, payables finance, or structured payables. Regardless of terminology, the economic substance is straightforward. A company purchases goods or services from a supplier on credit. Rather than paying the supplier on the original invoice terms, the company arranges for a bank or other financial intermediary to pay the supplier early—at a discount—in exchange for the company's commitment to repay the bank at a later date.² The supplier receives cash sooner. The bank earns a fee. And the company extends its effective payment terms while recording the obligation not as debt, but as accounts payable or, in many cases, within a nondescript line item such as "other creditors."³
When used transparently and at modest scale, supply chain finance is a legitimate working capital management tool. When used aggressively, without adequate disclosure, and at a scale that materially alters a company's apparent leverage profile, it becomes something else entirely: a mechanism for hiding debt in plain sight.
For decades, United States generally accepted accounting principles contained no explicit disclosure requirements for supplier finance programs.⁴ The Financial Accounting Standards Board acknowledged this gap directly. In its Basis for Conclusions accompanying ASU 2022-04, the Board noted that stakeholders had observed "a lack of transparency about supplier finance programs" because no explicit GAAP disclosure requirements existed and because buyer entities frequently presented obligations covered by these programs in the same balance sheet line item as ordinary trade accounts payable.⁴ The result was that a company could carry billions of dollars in bank-intermediated financing obligations—obligations that were functionally indistinguishable from short-term bank debt—without disclosing their existence, their scale, or their terms to any outside stakeholder.
This was not a theoretical concern. It was an architectural feature of how these programs were marketed. As the credit rating agency Fitch Ratings observed in a 2018 report, promotional literature in the supply chain finance industry "regularly cites as a benefit the fact that supply chain financing—and reverse factoring in particular—can be shown as accounts payable rather than debt."⁵ Companies could borrow cash from banks while avoiding its inclusion in financial covenants or debt reported on the balance sheet. Fitch concluded that "the magnitude of this unreported debt-like financing could be considerable in individual cases and may have negative credit implications."⁵
The incentive structure was, and to a significant extent remains, perverse. The more aggressively a company used reverse factoring, the healthier its balance sheet appeared. Reported debt-to-equity ratios declined. Operating cash flow improved—because the bank payments to suppliers were classified as operating outflows rather than financing outflows, the shift from supplier credit to bank-intermediated credit had the effect of reclassifying what was functionally a financing transaction into the operating section of the cash flow statement.⁶ Net debt metrics improved. And the company's apparent working capital position strengthened, even as its real economic position deteriorated.
Get the latest insights delivered to your inbox.
The consequences of this disclosure vacuum have been catastrophic—and the case studies are not obscure.
In January 2018, Carillion plc, one of the United Kingdom's largest construction and services companies—and a major supplier to the British government—entered compulsory liquidation with liabilities of nearly £7 billion and just £29 million in cash.⁷ The collapse was sudden, arriving less than a year after the company had paid a record dividend of £79 million and awarded generous performance bonuses to senior management.⁸ What the financial statements had not revealed was the scale of Carillion's dependence on reverse factoring.
Moody's Investors Service subsequently determined that Carillion's 2016 balance sheet showed £148 million in bank loans and overdrafts—while an additional sum of up to £498 million was owed to banks under a reverse factoring arrangement that the company had classified within "other creditors," entirely outside of reported borrowings.⁹ Standard & Poor's and Fitch issued similar analyses, each concluding that Carillion's accounting for its supply chain finance program had concealed its true level of borrowing from financial creditors.⁹ The reverse factoring arrangement had allowed Carillion to quadruple payment terms to subcontractors—from thirty days to one hundred and twenty days—while simultaneously reporting operating cash flow figures that appeared robust because the bank-intermediated payments were classified within operating activities rather than financing activities.¹⁰ As the London Business School's analysis of the collapse observed, the reverse factoring arrangement "really worked its magic" on Carillion's cash conversion ratio, a metric that served as a key performance indicator and a factor in top management remuneration.¹⁰
The fragility of this structure became apparent in the company's final months. When Carillion's creditworthiness deteriorated, the banks that had been funding the reverse factoring program withdrew the facility. The company was immediately required to fund its payables directly—at precisely the moment when it could no longer access capital markets on survivable terms. The withdrawal of the reverse factoring facility accelerated the collapse, transforming what might have been a managed restructuring into a sudden and disorderly liquidation that left thousands of suppliers, subcontractors, and employees with unrecoverable losses.⁷
The pattern repeated in 2023, at far greater scale. In January of that year, Brazilian retailer Americanas SA disclosed a $4 billion imbalance in its balance sheet and filed for bankruptcy protection.¹¹ An independent committee subsequently determined that management had manipulated financial records for years, with the fraud centered on the company's use of supplier finance arrangements.¹¹ The company had used reverse factoring to reclassify what were effectively bank borrowings as trade payables, systematically understating its reported debt and overstating its reported operating performance. Bloomberg characterized Americanas as "an extreme example of how the arcane practice, also called supply-chain finance or reverse factoring, can take advantage of loose accounting rules to flatter a company's balance sheet."¹¹
And then there was Greensill Capital. In March 2021, the United Kingdom-based supply chain finance provider—valued at $3.5 billion following a $1.5 billion investment from SoftBank's Vision Fund less than two years earlier—filed for insolvency.¹² The collapse exposed $10 billion in Credit Suisse fund exposure, triggered losses of up to $3 billion for Credit Suisse investors, and revealed that Greensill had extended the supply chain finance model far beyond its traditional boundaries—financing not only existing invoices but also transactions that Greensill "predicted would occur in the future," according to fraud allegations filed by one of its borrowers.¹² The Greensill failure did not merely demonstrate the risks of supply chain finance at the intermediary level. It demonstrated how the opacity of the entire asset class—the same opacity that allowed Carillion and Americanas to hide billions in liabilities—could propagate systemic risk through the financial system.
In September 2022, the FASB issued ASU 2022-04, which created a new Codification subtopic—ASC 405-50—and established the first explicit disclosure requirements for buyer entities participating in supplier finance programs.⁴ The standard requires annual disclosure of the key terms of such programs, the outstanding confirmed obligations at the end of each reporting period, a description of where those obligations are presented in the balance sheet, and an annual rollforward of confirmed obligations.⁴
The disclosures that resulted from the standard's adoption confirmed what forensic analysts had long suspected: the scale of supplier finance activity among large public companies was enormous. Bloomberg's analysis of the initial disclosures identified approximately $64.1 billion in supplier finance obligations among roughly eighty S&P 500 companies—obligations that had not been separately disclosed prior to the standard's effective date.¹ The disclosures revealed programs at some of the largest and most widely held companies in the index. The Wall Street Journal reported that disclosing companies included The Coca-Cola Company, The Boeing Company, AT&T Inc., General Electric Company, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, and General Motors Company, among others.¹³ At Keurig Dr Pepper, the disclosed supplier finance program represented approximately seventy-nine percent of the company's total accounts payable.¹³
These revelations are important. They are also insufficient. ASU 2022-04 addresses disclosure only. It does not affect the recognition, measurement, or financial statement presentation of supplier finance obligations.⁴ A company that carries $5 billion in bank-intermediated payables can now disclose their existence—but it is still permitted to present them in the same balance sheet line item as ordinary trade payables and to classify the related cash flows within operating activities rather than financing activities. The standard tells investors that the obligations exist. It does not require the company to reflect their economic substance—which is that of short-term bank debt—in either the balance sheet or the cash flow statement.
For institutional investors, this creates a paradox. The information is now available, but only to those who know where to look for it, how to interpret it, and how to adjust reported metrics accordingly. The casual reader of a quarterly earnings release will see the same leverage ratios, the same operating cash flow figures, and the same working capital metrics as before. The forensic analyst who reads the supplier finance footnote and adjusts for it will see a fundamentally different company.
The current trade policy environment adds a layer of urgency to this analysis. Extended periods of tariff-driven supply chain disruption and margin pressure have historically accelerated the adoption of supplier finance programs. When input costs rise unpredictably, when supplier relationships are strained by shifting sourcing requirements, and when companies face pressure to maintain reported profitability against a deteriorating cost structure, the appeal of reverse factoring intensifies. It allows companies to extend payment terms without losing supplier cooperation, to preserve the appearance of healthy operating cash flow, and to defer the balance-sheet recognition of what is functionally an increase in financial leverage.
The risk is that companies under tariff-driven margin pressure will lean more heavily on supplier finance precisely when the risk of abuse is highest—and precisely when the fragility of these arrangements is most dangerous. As the Carillion case demonstrated, reverse factoring facilities can be withdrawn rapidly when a company's creditworthiness deteriorates. A company that has used supply chain finance to extend payment terms from thirty days to one hundred and twenty days faces an immediate and potentially catastrophic working capital requirement if the facility is withdrawn. In a period of broad economic stress—the kind of stress that tariff-driven trade disruption can produce—the risk of simultaneous facility withdrawals across multiple companies is not negligible.
The forensic indicators for identifying problematic supply chain finance activity are accessible, but they require deliberate analysis that goes beyond the standard financial statement review.
The first indicator is the ASU 2022-04 disclosure itself. Institutional investors should locate the supplier finance footnote in each portfolio company's annual and interim filings and assess the confirmed obligation amount as a percentage of total accounts payable. A company whose supplier finance obligations represent fifty percent or more of total payables has a materially different liability profile than one whose payables are predominantly ordinary trade credit—even though the balance sheet line item may be identical.
The second indicator is the trajectory of the payables balance relative to revenue and cost of goods sold. A company whose accounts payable balance is growing significantly faster than revenue—particularly when accompanied by improving reported operating cash flow—may be using supply chain finance to extend payment terms and reclassify what is functionally financing activity into operating cash flows. The forensic investor should compute days payable outstanding over a rolling multi-year period and assess whether the trend is consistent with industry norms or suggests the use of financing arrangements to artificially extend the payable cycle.
The third indicator is the relationship between reported net debt and adjusted net debt. When a company discloses a material supplier finance program, the forensic investor should add the confirmed obligation amount to reported net debt and recalculate leverage ratios, interest coverage, and debt covenant proximity on an adjusted basis. In many cases, this adjustment will reveal a company that is materially more leveraged than its reported metrics suggest.
The fourth indicator is the cash flow statement. Under current GAAP, supplier finance payments are frequently classified within operating activities. The forensic investor should reclassify the supplier finance obligation change from operating to financing activities and assess whether the company's reported operating cash flow is sustainable on an adjusted basis—or whether it has been inflated by the accounting treatment of what is economically a borrowing arrangement.
The fifth indicator is the concentration and withdrawal risk of the financing facility itself. Investors should assess, to the extent the footnote permits, whether the supplier finance program is provided by a single financial institution or diversified across multiple providers, and whether the program contains provisions that permit the lender to terminate the facility on short notice. A company whose working capital position depends on the continued availability of a single-lender reverse factoring facility carries a liquidity risk that is invisible in the reported financial statements but potentially existential in a period of credit stress.
The $64 billion in supplier finance obligations revealed by ASU 2022-04 is almost certainly an understatement. The standard applies only to buyer entities, and many companies are still in the early stages of building the systems required to produce comprehensive rollforward disclosures. The true scale of bank-intermediated trade payables across the public equity markets—including companies outside the S&P 500, companies with programs below the materiality threshold for separate disclosure, and companies whose disclosure is technically compliant but substantively incomplete—is unknown.
What is known is that the mechanism operates in a disclosure environment that remains fundamentally inadequate. ASU 2022-04 requires companies to tell investors that supplier finance programs exist. It does not require them to present the obligations as debt, to classify the cash flows as financing activities, or to adjust the leverage ratios and working capital metrics that drive investment decisions, credit ratings, and executive compensation. The result is that the same accounting asymmetry that enabled Carillion to hide £498 million in bank debt within "other creditors," that allowed Americanas to construct a $4 billion balance sheet fraud around reverse factoring, and that facilitated Greensill's transformation of supply chain finance into a vehicle for speculative lending—that asymmetry persists, in attenuated but still consequential form, across the American public equity markets.
For institutional investors, the implication is clear. Supplier finance disclosures should not be treated as a compliance footnote to be acknowledged and forgotten. They should be treated as a forensic input—one that, properly analyzed, can reveal the difference between a company with genuine working capital efficiency and a company that has borrowed its way to the appearance of financial health. At the current scale of supply chain finance activity, and in the current environment of trade-driven economic uncertainty, the distinction is not academic. It is the difference between an informed investment and a concealed risk.
Get the latest insights delivered to your inbox.
Referenced Sources
[1] Bloomberg Tax, "New Rules Reveal $64 Billion of Hidden Leverage at Big US Firms" (May 2023), reporting that approximately eighty S&P 500 companies disclosed at least $64.1 billion in supplier finance obligations following the adoption of ASU 2022-04, based on a Bloomberg analysis of first-quarter filings.
[2] Financial Accounting Standards Board, Accounting Standards Update No. 2022-04, "Liabilities—Supplier Finance Programs (Subtopic 405-50): Disclosure of Supplier Finance Program Obligations" (September 29, 2022), defining a supplier finance program as an arrangement in which a buyer enters into an agreement with a finance provider, confirms supplier invoices as valid, and the supplier has the option to request early payment from the finance provider.
[3] Fitch Ratings, "Hidden Debt Loophole Could Be Widespread" (July 2018), observing that companies present reverse factoring obligations in accounts payable rather than debt, and noting that "promotional literature in the field regularly cites as a benefit the fact that supply chain financing—and reverse factoring in particular—can be shown as accounts payable rather than debt."
[4] FASB, ASU 2022-04, Basis for Conclusions; see also Deloitte, "Heads Up—FASB Issues ASU Requiring Enhanced Disclosures About Supplier Finance Programs" (September 30, 2022), and Crowe LLP, "FASB ASU Requires Supplier Finance Program Disclosures" (September 29, 2022). The standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022, with the rollforward disclosure effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2023.
[5] Fitch Ratings (July 2018), cited in Wolf Street, "'Hidden Debt Loophole Could be Widespread': Fitch" (July 30, 2018). Fitch further observed that "a review of a number of companies with supply chain financing programs shows precious little by way of disclosure."
[6] Moody's Investors Service, analysis of Carillion's reverse factoring arrangements (March 2018), noting that the classification of bank-intermediated payments within operating activities rather than financing activities inflated reported operating cash flow; see also London Business School, "Two Lessons from the Failure of Carillion" (February 6, 2018).
[7] House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and Work and Pensions Committee, "Carillion: Second Joint Report" (May 2018), documenting that Carillion entered compulsory liquidation in January 2018 with liabilities of nearly £7 billion and just £29 million in cash.
[8] House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Work and Pensions Committees, "Carillion: Second Joint Report" (May 2018), p. 5: "It went into liquidation in January 2018 with liabilities of nearly £7 billion and just £29 million in cash. Yet it had paid a record dividend of £79 million and large bonuses to senior executives for performance in 2016." See also London Business School, "Two Lessons from the Failure of Carillion" (February 6, 2018), noting that Carillion's 2016 dividends were estimated at approximately 64% of reported earnings.
[9] Moody's Investors Service (March 2018), as reported in CFO.com, "Carillion Collapse Exposes Flaws in Trade Finance Disclosure" (March 14, 2018). Moody's determined that Carillion's 2016 balance sheet showed £148 million in bank loans and overdrafts while up to £498 million in additional obligations to banks under the reverse factoring arrangement were classified outside of reported borrowings. Standard & Poor's and Fitch issued similar findings.
[10] London Business School, "Two Lessons from the Failure of Carillion" (February 6, 2018), analyzing Carillion's use of reverse factoring to extend payment terms to 120 days, its classification of reverse factoring obligations within "other creditors," and the resulting distortion of the company's reported cash conversion ratio, which served as a key performance indicator and a factor in executive compensation.
[11] Bloomberg Law, "$4 Billion Accounting Scandal Exposes Supplier Finance Risks" (January 25, 2023), reporting on Americanas SA's bankruptcy filing and the independent committee finding that management had manipulated financial records using supplier finance arrangements.
[12] Greensill Capital insolvency filing (March 8, 2021); London Business School, "The Fall of Greensill and the Future of Supply Chain Finance" (case study, October 2025), documenting the $1.5 billion SoftBank Vision Fund investment at a $3.5 billion valuation and the subsequent insolvency. Credit Suisse estimated investor losses of up to $3 billion. The fraud allegations regarding financing of predicted future invoices were filed by Bluestone Resources Inc. on March 15, 2021.
[13] The Wall Street Journal, "Companies Unveil Details About Supply Chain Financing Under New Rule" (2023), as cited in Troutman Pepper Locke, "Co. Directors Must Beware Dangers of Reverse Factoring" (May 15, 2025), reporting that disclosing S&P 500 companies included Coca-Cola, Boeing, AT&T, General Electric, Kimberly-Clark, and General Motors, and that Keurig Dr Pepper's supplier finance program represented approximately 79% of its total accounts payable.
This article is published by Buxton Helmsley USA, Inc. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, a solicitation, or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. The views expressed are those of Buxton Helmsley and are based on publicly available information as of the date of publication. Investors should conduct their own due diligence and consult with qualified professionals before making investment decisions.
Insights and updates delivered directly to your inbox.